Replies

Congratulations to Gerry Matatics and thanks to John Pacheco and the Catholic-Legate for posting the details on this debate.

* * * * *

As many faithful Catholics are painfully aware, the Church's doctrines are always under attack by Her enemies. When the attacks are veiled by an air of scholarly research and presentation, they can become a source of doubt to some Catholics or a stumbling block to those wishing to become Catholic.

In recent years, Eric Svendsen of New Testament Research Ministries has taken aim at the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary and in particular her perpetual virginity. He has even written a book entitled Who is My Mother? - The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, attacking the Church's teaching about Mary and her virginity. This is a book which has such a veneer of scholarly research and professional detachment.

It is, in fact, neither.

In order to convince Catholics that Our Lady lost her virginity, Svendsen utilizes the conspicuous until in Matthew 1:25. Instead of focusing on the traditional Protestant polemic surrounding 'until', he concentrates on a particular Greek grammatical construction for the 'until' in Matthew 1:25. It is alleged that this Greek phrase in question, heõs hou for the uninitiated, proves that Mary did indeed lose her virginity.

It is my pleasure to release a thorough refutation of this claim, presented below and entitled Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic. It will hopefully shatter all pretense and veiled legitimacy of this argument, which, for too long now, has been floating around cyberspace with impunity.

The Heõs Hou polemic is now over - for good.

Blessed Be Mary Ever-Virgin!

* * * * *

Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic by John Pacheco

Now what really happened:

The Arizona Cardinals stink. Let's face it. They got clocked 44-6 this past weekend, and they are headed for another one of their regular 4-12 type seasons. I have often said I'd be happy to volunteer to pack them up and ship them off to any city willing to take them. They are just bad from top to bottom. So why would I say Sungenis roots for the Cardinals? Well, late last night, a few hours after the Dividing Line featuring Gerry Matatics, Sungenis posted a review on his website. Well, no, not a review. I don't know what to call it. If you have listened to that edition of the Dividing Line and want some of the clearest evidence ever offered that some folks suffer from massively selective hearing, check it out. It is almost humorous, if it didn't involve obvious spiritual blindness. (BTW, Sungenis should really leave the cheesey titles to Scott Hahn. Though Hahn's define the term "cheese," at least, considered singularly, they normally carry a small amount of humor. Sungenis' article is titled, "Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead." Excuse me?) Outside of the expected egregious misrepresentations, the whole thing is focused on a single issue. To summarize, "Hey, hey, don't listen to all those questions that didn't get an answer, just think of one thing: we have a single exception to Dr. Svendsen's thesis in a non-biblical source outside of the time parameters he examined! Wahoo! We have an exception to a rule of grammar! We win! We win! WE ARE #1!" And that's why I say Bob Sungenis roots for the Cardinals. See, it's one thing to say, "Hey, I'm a Cardinals fan, whether they win, or lose...and lose...and lose." I admire that kind of die-hard fan. But that is very different from standing there in the 4th quarter as the Cards are down by 30+ points screaming, "Yeah man, we are the BEST! We ROCK!" That's simple self-deception. And that's Bob Sungenis. He can listen to Matatics self-destruct on the level of not even being able to read a lexical entry properly and that doesn't even create a blip on his radar screen. Why? "Cuz Rome rules! WE ARE #1!" Just as the Cardinals will only get to the Super Bowl by purchasing tickets to it in 2008 (here in Phoenix), Rome will only get you the consolation prize of deception now, and destruction at the final judgment.

James White

To listen to the debate go here:

straitgate.com/jw111803.ram

Hey, Joseph and Mary were married. So what if they had relations or didn't have relations? If they did, it wasn't a sin.

What is that to thee and me?

Speaking for myself, credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae; et in Jesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferos; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; et vitam aeternam.

If you want to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that doesn't bother me. If you want to vigorously disbelieve in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that doesn't bother me either.

I don't think it's a central issue, or even a terribly important issue. Whichever, she intercedes for us in a big way.